See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223478837

A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on Some Food Products

Article  in  Journal of Food Engineering · January 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016

CITATIONS READS

499 11,647

7 authors, including:

Poritosh Roy Daisuke Nei

University of Guelph National Food Research Institute
75 PUBLICATIONS   1,194 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Takahiro Orikasa
Iwate University
76 PUBLICATIONS   1,261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NSERC Discovery View project

LCA & LCC of biofuels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Poritosh Roy on 15 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Review

A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products

Poritosh Roy *, Daisuke Nei, Takahiro Orikasa, Qingyi Xu, Hiroshi Okadome,
Nobutaka Nakamura, Takeo Shiina *
National Food Research Institute, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Kannondai 2-1-12, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8642, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental load of a product,
Received 2 November 2007 process, or activity throughout its life cycle. Today’s LCA users are a mixture of individuals with skills
Received in revised form 28 May 2008 in different disciplines who want to evaluate their products, processes, or activities in a life cycle context.
Accepted 7 June 2008
This study attempts to present some of the LCA studies on agricultural and industrial food products,
Available online 22 June 2008
recent advances in LCA and their application on food products. The reviewed literatures indicate that
agricultural production is the hotspot in the life cycle of food products and LCA can assist to identify more
Keywords:
sustainable options. Due to the recent development of LCA methodologies and dissemination programs
Produce
Food
by international and local bodies, use of LCA is rapidly increasing in agricultural and industrial food prod-
Life cycle ucts. A network of information sharing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA development
Emissions process. The literatures also suggest that LCA coupled with other approaches provides much more reli-
LCA able and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious policy makers, producers, and con-
sumers in selecting sustainable products and production processes. Although LCA methodologies have
been improved, further international standardization would broaden its practical applications, improve
the food security and reduce human health risk.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. LCA methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Goal definition and scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4. Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LCA studies on food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. LCA of industrial food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. LCA of other agricultural products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. LCA of food waste management systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Ongoing efforts on LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +81 29 838 8027; fax: +81 29 838 7996.
E-mail addresses: poritosh@affrc.go.jp (P. Roy), shiina@affrc.go.jp (T. Shiina).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016
2 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
1. Introduction
The food industry is one of the world’s largest industrial sectors
and hence is a large user of energy. Greenhouse gas emission,
which has increased remarkably due to tremendous energy use,
has resulted in global warming, perhaps the most serious problem
that humankind faces today. Food production, preservation and
distribution consume a considerable amount of energy, which con-
tributes to total CO2 emission. Moreover, consumers in developed
countries demand safe food of high quality that has been produced
with minimal adverse impacts on the environment (Boer, 2002).
There is increased awareness that the environmentally conscious
consumer of the future will consider ecological and ethical criteria
in selecting food products (Andersson et al., 1994). It is thus essen-
tial to evaluate the environmental impact and the utilization of
resources in food production and distribution systems for sustain-
able consumption.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for evaluating environmen-
tal effects of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle
or lifetime, which is known as a ‘from cradle to grave’ analysis.
Environmental awareness influences the way in which legislative
bodies such as governments will guide the future development of
agricultural and industrial food production systems. Although sev-
eral researchers have compiled LCA studies to emphasize the need
for LCA (Foster et al., 2006; Boer, 2002; Ekvall and Finnveden,
2001; Adisa, 1999; Andersson et al., 1994), some recent advances
in agricultural LCAs have yet to be reported. Therefore, this study
aims to present recent advances in LCA and provide a specific
review of LCA in several food products.
2. LCA methodology
Although the concept of LCA evolved in the 1960s and there have
been several efforts to develop LCA methodology since the 1970s, it
has received much attention from individuals in environmental sci-
ence fields since the 1990s. For this concept many names have been
used, for instance eco-balancing (Germany, Switzerland, Austria
and Japan), resource and environment profile analysis (USA), envi-
ronmental profiling and cradle-to-grave assessment. The Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) has been
involved in increasing the awareness and understanding of the con-
cept of LCA. In the 1990s, SETAC in North America, and the US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sponsored workshops and
several projects to develop and promote a consensus on a frame-
work for conducting life cycle inventory analysis and impact assess-
ment. Similar efforts were undertaken by SETACEurope, other
international organizations (such as the International Organization
for Standardization, ISO), and LCA practitioners worldwide. As a re-
sult of these efforts, consensus has been achieved on an overall LCA
framework and a well-defined inventory methodology (ISO, 1997).
Life cycle assessment framework
Goal and
scope Direct applications:
definition - Product development
Interpretation
and improvement
- Strategic planning
Inventory - Public policy making
analysis
- Marketing
- Other
Impact
assessment
Fig. 1. Stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006).
The method is rapidly developing into an important tool for author-
ities, industries, and individuals in environmental sciences. Fig. 1
shows the stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006). The purpose of an LCA can
be (1) comparison of alternative products, processes or services;
(2) comparison of alternative life cycles for a certain product or ser-
vice; (3) identification of parts of the life cycle where the greatest
improvements can be made.
2.1. Goal definition and scoping
Goal definition and scoping is perhaps the most important com-
ponent of an LCA because the study is carried out according to the
statements made in this phase, which defines the purpose of the
study, the expected product of the study, system boundaries, func-
tional unit (FU) and assumptions. The system boundary of a system
is often illustrated by a general input and output flow diagram. All
operations that contribute to the life cycle of the product, process,
or activity fall within the system boundaries. The purpose of FU is
to provide a reference unit to which the inventory data are normal-
ized. The definition of FU depends on the environmental impact
category and aims of the investigation. The functional unit is often
based on the mass of the product under study. However, nutri-
tional and economic values of products (Cederberg and Mattsson,
2000) and land area are also being used.
2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
This phase is the most work intensive and time consuming
compared to other phases in an LCA, mainly because of data collec-
tion. The data collection can be less time consuming if good dat-
abases are available and if customers and suppliers are willing to
help. Many LCA databases exist and can normally be bought to-
gether with LCA software. Data on transport, extraction of raw
materials, processing of materials, production of usually used
products such as plastic and cardboard, and disposal can normally
be found in an LCA database. Data from databases can be used for
processes that are not product specific, such as general data on the
production of electricity, coal or packaging. For product-specific
data, site-specific data are required. The data should include all in-
puts and outputs from the processes. Inputs are energy (renewable
and non-renewable), water, raw materials, etc. Outputs are the
products and co-products, and emission (CO2, CH4, SO2, NOx and
CO) to air, water and soil (total suspended solids: TSS, biological
oxygen demand: BOD, chemical oxygen demand: COD and
chlorinated organic compounds: AOXs) and solid waste generation
(municipal solid waste: MSW and landfills).
2.3. Impact assessment
The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aims to understand and
evaluate environmental impacts based on the inventory analysis,
within the framework of the goal and scope of the study. In this
phase, the inventory results are assigned to different impact cate-
gories, based on the expected types of impacts on the environment.
Impact assessment in LCA generally consists of the following
elements: classification, characterization, normalization and valua-
tion. Classification is the process of assignment and initial aggrega-
tion of LCI data into common impact groups. Characterization is
the assessment of the magnitude of potential impacts of each
inventory flow into its corresponding environmental impact (e.g.,
modeling the potential impact of carbon dioxide and methane on
global warming). Characterization provides a way to directly com-
pare the LCI results within each category. Characterization factors
are commonly referred to as equivalency factors. Normalization
expresses potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g.,
comparing the global warming impact of carbon dioxide and meth-
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
ane for the two options). Valuation is the assessment of the relative
importance of environmental burdens identified in the classifica-
tion, characterization, and normalization stages by assigning them
weighting which allows them to be compared or aggregated. Im-
pact categories include global effects (global warming, ozone
depletion, etc.); regional effects (acidification, eutrophication,
photo-oxidant formation, etc.); and local effects (nuisance, work-
ing conditions, effects of hazardous waste, effects of solid waste,
etc.).
2.4. Interpretation
The purpose of an LCA is to draw conclusions that can support a
decision or can provide a readily understandable result of an LCA.
The inventory and impact assessment results are discussed to-
gether in the case of an LCIA, or the inventory only in the case of
LCI analysis, and significant environmental issues are identified
for conclusions and recommendations consistent with the goal
and scope of the study. This is a systematic technique to identify
and quantify, check and evaluate information from the results of
the LCI and LCIA, and communicate them effectively. This assess-
ment may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of
improvement, such as changes in product, process and activity
design; raw material use, industrial processing, consumer use
and waste management.
3. LCA studies on food products
The growing concern about sustainable food production and
consumption prompted different research activities on food pro-
duction and distribution systems including agricultural produce.
At the same time, international trade in food products also contin-
ues to increase. Predominantly, the LCA methodology has been
applied to industrial products and processes. Although most of
the life cycle studies carried out so far involve either agricultural
production or industrial refining, several LCA studies on agricul-
tural products have included agricultural production and industrial
processing, and qualities of finished food products, including bio-
ethanol and bio-diesel (Audsley et al., 1997; Sonesson and Davis,
2005; Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Berlin, 2002; Berlin et al., 2007;
Kim and Dale, 2002, 2005; Janulis, 2004).
3.1. LCA of industrial food products
Bread is one of the important industrial food products, and has
been studied by several researchers (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999;
Holderbeke et al., 2003; Braschkat et al., 2003; Rosing and Nielsen,
2003). The studies include crop production methods (conventional
and organic) to milling technologies and bread production pro-
cesses, packaging and cleaning agents. A scenario combining
organic production of wheat, industrial milling and a large bread
factory is reported to be the most advantageous way of producing
bread. There is a stronger distinction between industrial and
household production chains than between conventional and or-
ganic. However, an organic method requires more land area than
required for conventional wheat production. The results were ana-
lyzed based on the mass (kg) of bread. The primary production and
the transportation stages were reported to be highly significant for
most of the impact categories. The processing stage (baking) is sig-
nificant for photo-oxidant formation and energy use. Eutrophica-
tion impacts are associated with cultivation which is linked to a
leakage of nitrogen from fields and emissions of nitrogenous
compounds in the production of nitrogen fertilizer and the use of
tractors.
3
In the case of beer production, the emission was reported to be
the highest during wort production followed by filtration and
packaging and lastly fermentation and storage (Takamoto et al.,
2004). Koroneos et al. (2005) reported that the bottle production,
followed by packaging and beer production, was the subsystem
that accounts for most of the emissions. The production and man-
ufacturing of the packaging elements as well as the harvesting and
transport of cereals are responsible for the largest portion (Hospido
et al., 2005). Takamoto et al. (2004) did not include the transport of
resource supplies, supply of beer containers, waste treatment,
shipping, and recovery from the market, and estimated only CO2
emission. Koroneos et al. (2005) and Hospido et al. (2005) included
the transportation, and waste treatment and recycling of glass bot-
tles. This difference in system boundaries might lead to different
interpretation of the results.
LCA of tomato ketchup was carried out to identify the ‘hotspots’
in its life cycle and to find the way to improve the product’s envi-
ronmental performance (Andersson et al., 1998; Andersson and
Ohlsson, 1999). The functional unit is defined as 1 ton of tomato
ketchup consumed. Packaging and food processing were reported
to be hotspots (where the environmental impacts are the highest
in an LCA) for many impact categories. These studies revealed that
the current geographical location of the production systems of
ketchup is preferable; contributions to acidification can be reduced
significantly and the environmental profile of the product can be
improved for either the type of tomato paste currently used or a
less concentrated tomato paste.
3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production
The dairy industry has been studied extensively to determine its
environmental impact in many European countries. Milk is one of
the most important dairy products in European countries, and it
has been reported that organic milk production can reduce pesti-
cide use and mineral surplus in agriculture, but requires substan-
tially more arable land than conventional production (Williams
et al., 2006; Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000). These studies revealed
that measures to reduce the potential impact from milk production
need to be implemented in both systems. The suggested improve-
ment in conventional production are the following: reduce
nutrient surplus in farms, less use of pesticide in imported concen-
trated feeds, and on-farm fodder production and increased use of
domestically or regionally produced feed ingredients. A greater
use of concentrated feed, a high self-supporting capacity of fodder
and cultivation of high yielding crops were recommended for or-
ganic production. The most adequate formulation of cattle feed
and implementation of treatment systems for water and air emis-
sions can reduce the environmental impacts. The agricultural
phase was reported to be the main hotspot in the life cycle of milk
and semi-hard cheeses (Hospido et al., 2003; Berlin, 2002). Packag-
ing, waste management and cleaning processes also have potential
impacts (Eide, 2002; Casey and Holden, 2003). The main environ-
mental impacts associated with dairy processing are the high con-
sumption of water, the discharge of effluent with high organic
components and energy consumption. It is also reported that fre-
quent product changes increase the milk waste, and this can be re-
duced through product sequencing (scheduling of products) (Berlin
et al., 2007). Sonesson and Berlin (2003) reported that the amount
of packaging materials used is also an important factor. The use of
less amount of packaging materials leads to the greater energy sav-
ing since less packaging material is produced. Boer et al. (2003) re-
ported that the effectiveness of environmental indicators is
dependent on the method of analysis. The input–output account-
ing (IO) of nutrients yields effective indicators with respect to
eutrophication and acidification. On the other hand, Ecological
4 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
Footprint Analysis (EFP) and LCA yield similar indicators regarding
land and energy use.
The milk production system produces multiple products (milk,
meat, manure, etc.) and it is difficult to decide to what extent the
emissions are related to milk and co-products. A system expansion
(the boundaries of the system investigated are expanded to include
the alternative production of exported functions. For example,
inclusion of beef and meat in the LCA of milk is considered to be
a system expansion, where the function of beef and manure is ex-
ported from the life of milk. Milk is considered the main product,
and beef and manure are the co-products) has been suggested to
avoid these difficulties (Dalgaard and Halberg, 2003; Cederberg
and Stadig, 2003). An industry-specific physico-chemical allocation
matrix has also been developed for dairy industry to overcome the
inherited bias of mass, process energy, or price allocations for a
multi-product manufacturing plant, and this gives a more realistic
indication of resource use or emissions per product (Feitz et al.,
2007). The dairy industry (milk) was evaluated to estimate whole
system (dairy farm + grazing and forage land) effects on the inten-
sification of nitrogen fertilizer or on forage crop integration. The
volume of milk (m3) is used as the functional unit. It is reported
that nitrogen fertilizer increased production and economic effi-
ciency but decreased environmental efficiency. The most signifi-
cant environmental impact of the agricultural subsystem is
eutrophication which is linked to the leakage of nitrogen and phos-
phorus from production and use of fertilizers. In contrast, increased
use of forage produced off-farm increased total land use efficiency
and production efficiency, with no loss in environmental efficiency
per liter of milk (Ledgard et al., 2003).
LCA studies on meat production have been reported by several
researchers. The environmental impacts of beef-fattening system
are reported to be dependent on the feeding length, feed produc-
tion and type of feed, animal housing and manure storage (Ogino
et al., 2002, 2004; Núñez et al., 2005; Hakansson et al., 2005;
Williams et al., 2006; Nemecek, 2006). A shorter feeding length
lowered the environmental impacts. The feeding stage is reported
to be the most important factor for environmental impacts and the
infrastructure is also relevant, especially for energy consumption
and human toxicity (Erzinger et al., 2003; Núñez et al., 2005).
The results are referred to the mass of the product. It was also re-
ported that organic farming reduces pesticide use but requires
more land and leads to higher global warming impacts than non-
organic systems in UK conditions (Williams et al., 2006). In
contrast, organic farming reduces the global warming potential
associated with the finished product in sheep farming (Williams
et al., 2006). Impacts were reported to be similar for conventional
and organic pig farming systems on a per-kg basis, with respect to
lower emissions of ammonia and nitrate from organic systems.
However, uncertainties in emission calculations were reported
for different practices, at some points within the system which
influenced the results (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2003,
2005). Replacement of soya meal feed by pea and rapeseed-cakes
is favorable for pork production. Introduction of green legumes
in intensive crop rotations with high proportion of cereals and
nitrogen fertilizer is advantageous. LCA studies on meat production
seldom extend beyond the meat production stage (i.e., agricul-
tural). Studies which cover more of the life cycle indicate that agri-
cultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of
meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2008). Chicken pro-
duction is reported to be most environmentally efficient followed
by pork, with beef being the least efficient if protein is considered
as the functional unit. However, pork production appears to the
most environmentally efficient if functional unit is energy content
(Roy et al., 2008). For both the functional units beef is reported to
be the least efficient, might be because of the greater feed conver-
sion ratio (mass of the feed consumed divided by the gain of body
mass) results in higher emission from feed production. These stud-
ies revealed that the enteric or gut CH4 emission from livestock and
N2O emission from feed (crops) production are major contributors
to global warming for dairy and meat products.
3.3. LCA of other agricultural products
Rice is one of the most important agricultural commodities in
the world. The life cycle of rice includes production and post-
harvest phases. Breiling et al. (1999) studied the production of
rough rice (paddy) in Japan to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The study reported that GHG emission is dependent
on location, size of farms and the variety of rice. Roy et al. (2005)
studied the life cycle of parboiled rice (post-harvest phases) pro-
duced at a small scale by local processes and reported that environ-
mental load from the life cycle of rice varies from process to
process; however, environmental load was greater for parboiled
rice compared to untreated rice (non-parboiled rice). Life cycle
inventory of meals (breakfast, lunch and supper consist of rice,
wheat, soybeans, crude and refined sugar, tomato, dried noodle,
vegetable oil, cooked rice, meat) was also reported. Emission from
cooking is reported to be 0.116, 0.773, 0.637, 0.423 and 0.295 kg/
meal for breakfast, lunch, Japanese-supper, Western-supper and
Chinese-supper, respectively. The study revealed that the life cycle
CO2 emission was higher for protein-rich products followed by car-
bohydrate-rich products (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006).
Sugar beet production was analyzed using the Eco-indicator 95
(Brentrup et al., 2001), and a developed LCA methodology was used
for winter wheat production (Brentrup et al., 2004a,b). It was
concluded that the economic and environmental aspects of high
yielding crop production systems are not necessarily in conflict,
whereas under- or over-supply of nitrogen fertilizers leads to
decreasing resource use efficiency. At low nitrogen rates the land
use was the key factor, whereas at a high nitrogen rates eutrophi-
cation was the major problem. Bennett et al. (2004) reported that
the genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant sugar beet pro-
duction would be less harmful to the environment and human
health than growing the conventional crop, largely due to lower
emission from herbicide manufacture, transport and field opera-
tions. Haas et al. (2001) studied three different farming intensities
(by varying farmgate N and P balances) – intensive (N: 80.1 and P:
5.3 kg/ha), extensified (N: 31.4 and P: 4.5 kg/ha), and organic (N:
31.1 and P: 2.3 kg/ha) – in the Allgäu region in Germany. The area
(ha) and mass of the product (ton) were the functional units. The
study revealed that extensified and organic farms could reduce
the negative effects in abiotic impact categories of energy use, glo-
bal warming potential, and ground water compared to intensive
farming by renouncing mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Acidification
and eutrophication were also reported to be higher for intensive
farming compared to those for extensified or organic farming.
LCA studies on potatoes have also been reported (Mattsson and
Wallén, 2003; Williams et al., 2006) with regard to the production
methods and location of production. Mattsson and Wallén (2003)
suggested that organic cultivation is considerably less energy inten-
sive. In contrast, energy input is reported to be the same for organic
and conventional production (Williams et al., 2006). Mass of the
product was used as the functional unit in both studies. By shifting
from conventional to organic production, energy in fertilizer pro-
duction is replaced by energy for additional machines and machin-
ery operation, but it requires more land in organic systems.
Several researchers studied the life cycle of tomato and the
results were referred to different functional units: mass (kg or
ton: Antón et al., 2004a,b, 2005; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES,
2003; Shiina et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008) or area (ha: Muñoz et
al., 2004) or both (Hayashi, 2006). It has been reported that the
method of cultivation (greenhouse or open field, organic or
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
conventional, and hydroponic or soil-based), variety, location of
cultivation, and packaging and distribution systems affect the LCI
of tomatoes (Stanhill, 1980; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES, 2003;
Antón et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2006; Hayashi, 2005; Shiina
et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008). The studies vary widely on emissions
from cultivation perhaps because of differences in location, meth-
od of cultivation, and variety. It has also been reported that GHG
emissions from tomato cultivation in greenhouses are dependent
on the type and construction of the greenhouse (or any similar
structure) (Antón et al., 2005). The LCI of tomato imported – which
includes storage and transport – by Sweden from Israel (Carlsson-
Kanyama, 1998) was reported to be far less than that of local
production (the farmgate emissions) for greenhouses in the UK
(Williams et al., 2006). The life cycle of tomatoes has also been
studied to determine the environmental impacts of the cropping
system, pest control methods (CPM: chemical pest management
and IPM: integrated pest management) and waste management
scenarios (Antón et al., 2004a,b; Muñoz et al., 2004). Input re-
sources are less in the case of plastic covers compared to protected
cultivation (greenhouses). The CPM method has a higher level of
contamination in greenhouses compared to the IPM. The relative
impacts are reported to be highly dependent on the selection of
specific pesticides and crop stage development at the moment of
pesticide application. It was reported that both CPM and IPM
methods could be improved by careful selection of pesticides,
and composting of biodegradable matter is the best way to im-
prove environmental factors. It was also reported that a compari-
son of pesticides is feasible and pollution sources of highest
concern are identifiable. Margni et al. (2002) concluded that food
intake results in the highest toxic exposure (about 103–105 times
higher) than through drinking water or inhalation.
3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA
The UNEP–SETAC life cycle initiative expects to provide a
common basis for the future development of mutually consistent
impact assessment methods. This initiative includes methods for
the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with water
consumption and land use (Jolliet et al., 2004). Ecosystem thermo-
dynamics and remote sensing techniques were considered as a
promising tool to assess land use impacts in a more direct way
and to measure ecosystem thermal characteristics. Once opera-
tional, it may offer a quick and cheap alternative to quantify land
use impacts in any terrestrial ecosystem of any size (Wagendrop
et al., 2006). Lindeijer (2000) explored the biodiversity and life
support impacts of land use in LCA and revealed that additional
indicators might be necessary for wider acceptance by experts. Soil
erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, soil pH, phosphorus,
potassium status of the soil, and biodiversity are good choices for
indicators (Mattsson et al., 2000). The ecoinvent 2000 project
group developed a simplified methodology to incorporate the land
use impact in LCA considering the recommendations of the SETAC
LCIA working group (Jungbluth and Frischknecht, 2004). The
balance of the total surfaces transformed indicates whether the
surface of a certain type of land is decreased or increased.
Impacts on water resources are seldom included despite the fact
that food production and processing account for the majority of
water use globally (Foster et al., 2006). Ecological footprint analy-
ses compare human demand on nature with the biosphere’s ability
to regenerate resources and provide services by assessing the bio-
logically productive land and marine area required to produce the
resources a population consumes and to absorb corresponding
waste. This method is similar to LCA, where the consumption of
energy, food, building material, water and other resources is con-
verted into a normalized measure of land area known as ‘global
hectares’ (gha). It can be used to explore the sustainability of indi-
5
vidual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industrial sec-
tors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations (Global Footprint
Network, 2008). The ecological footprint on food consumption
which has been reported by several researchers (Collins et al.,
2005; Frey and Barrett, 2006) is dependent on the categories of
meals (dietary choices) and location (cities or regions or countries).
In 2001, the citizens of Cardiff had an ecological footprint of
5.59 gha/resident (Collins et al., 2005) and the world ecological
footprint was 2.2 gha/person, and the ecological footprint of the
diet of Scotland was reported to be 0.75 gha/person (Frey and
Barrett, 2006).
Jungbluth et al. (2000) used a simplified modular LCA approach
to evaluate impacts from the consumer’s point of view. Six differ-
ent subgroups (time-short anti-ecologist, human-supermarket
shopper, label-sensitive shopper, environmentally unconscious re-
gional-product fan, imperfect ecologist and ideal ecologist) were
considered to calculate their impacts for five single aspects of deci-
sion: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type
of preservation and consumption. Differences from the consumer’s
point of view arise mainly from differences among meat from or-
ganic production and from integrated production. Poultry and pork
show the lowest impacts while grazing animals show the highest.
Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause
the highest surplus environmental impact. Avoiding air-trans-
ported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmen-
tal impacts. The study explored that consumers have the chance to
reduce the environmental impacts significantly due to their food
purchases. The environmental impact from purchases of a certain
amount of meat or vegetables may vary by a factor of 2.5 or 8,
respectively.
Life cycle costing is also being used as a decision support tool.
Pretty et al. (2005) explored the full costs of foods in the average
weekly UK food basket by calculating the costs arising at different
stages from the farm to consumer plates (for 12 major commodi-
ties). Changes in both farm production and food transport have
resulted in the imposition of new levels of environmental costs.
Actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and shift
consumer decisions on specific shopping preferences and transport
choices would have a substantial impact on environmental out-
comes. Krozer (2008) explored that the costs of pollution control
can in several cases be avoided through focused actions in the life
cycle, including changes in suppliers, adaptation of the manufac-
turing process and consumer behavior. These studies suggested
that the introduction of land, water and other approaches in agri-
cultural LCA would provide additional indicators in agricultural
LCA, lead to better interpretation of the results and enable more
reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally con-
scious decision makers, producers and consumers.
3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems
Packaging is a fundamental element of almost every food prod-
uct and a vital source of environmental burden and waste. Packag-
ing isolates food from factors affecting loss of quality such as
oxygen, moisture and microorganisms, and provides cushioning
performance during transportation and storage. The packaging of
food products presents considerable challenges to the food and
beverage industry, and minimizing the packaging and modifying
both primary and secondary food packaging present an optimizing
opportunity for these industries (Henningsson et al., 2004;
Ajinomoto Group, 2003; Hyde et al., 2001). The production stage
of the packaging system is reported be the principal cause for the
major impacts. Increasing recycling rates and reducing weight in
the primary package are environmentally more efficient (Ferrão
et al., 2003). Hospido et al. (2005) concluded that production and
transportation of packaging materials contribute to one-third of
6 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

the total global environmental impact of the life cycle of beer with relationship between relative LCI and loss of food, and concluded
the use of glass bottles. Reusable glass bottle packaging systems that there should be the optimum point of loss to minimize the
are reported to be the most environmentally favorable systems LCI for food supply chain (Fig. 2). The relative LCI = (x1 + x2)/x3
compared to disposable glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel (where x1 is production LCI, x2 is post-harvest LCI and x3 is produc-
cans for beer production (Ekvall et al., 1998). Modified atmosphere tion LCI without loss), if x2 = x3/loss in decimal. Hence, the packag-
packaging is reported to be beneficial compared to that of paper ing or any other means of quality control activities on food should
box and cold chain distribution for imported tomato (Roy et al., be based on optimum point of loss of a certain food.
2008).
The use of polylaminate bags instead of metallic cans in coffee
3.6. LCA of food waste management systems
packaging could be a better option in the case of small packages,
even though this solution does not favor material recycling (Monte
Waste minimization in the food industry has lead to improve-
et al., 2005). In the comparative study on the egg package, polysty-
ments demonstrated in other sectors – energy efficiency, reduction
rene packages contribute more to acidification potential, winter
of raw material use, reduction in water consumption and increas-
and summer smog, while recycled paper packages contribute more
ing reuse and recycling on site (Hyde et al., 2001). Generation of
to heavy metal and carcinogenic substances (Zabaniotou and
liquid effluent with high organic content and the generation of
Kassidi, 2003). Ross and Evans (2003) concluded that the recycling
large quantities of sludge and solid wastes are reported to be a
and reuse strategies for plastic-based packaging materials can
common problem to all food industries (UNEP, 1995). Ramjeawon
yield significant environmental benefits. Mourad et al. (2008) ex-
(2000) argued to separate wastewater in the cane sugar industry
plored the post-consumer recycling rate of aseptic packaging for
into two or three streams, most importantly separating the most
long-life milk and revealed that it is possible to increase the recy-
polluted wastewater from the large volume of relatively unpol-
cling rate to 70% of post-consumer packages in the future, and a
luted barometric condenser water, thereby reducing the scale
48% reduction of GWP could be attained. Sonesson and Berlin
and expense of treatment required.
(2003) reported that the amount of packaging materials used is
Hirai et al. (2000) evaluated four food waste treatment scenar-
an important factor in the milk supply chain in Sweden. (Williams
ios (incineration, incineration after bio-gasification, bio-gasifica-
et al., 2008) reported that there are obvious potentials to increase
tion followed by composting and composting). The potential
customer satisfaction and at the same time decrease the environ-
contribution to climate change and human toxicity was reported
mental impact of food packaging systems, if the packaging design
to be lower for scenarios with a bio-gasification process. Lundie
helps to decrease food losses. Hyde et al. (2001) argued that a
and Peters (2005) reported that home composting has the least
reduction of 12% of raw materials can be achieved in the food
environmental impact in all categories if operated aerobically.
and beverage industry, and it makes a significant contribution to
The environmental performance of the codisposal (landfilling of
company profitability by improving yields per unit output and by
food waste with municipal waste) option is relatively good com-
reducing costs associated with waste disposal. The alternative
pared to centralized composting of green waste (food and garden
packaging scenarios are found to be useful to reduce environmen-
waste), except with respect to climate change and eutrophication
tal burdens of a packaging system. However, it would be much
potential. Centralized composting has relatively poor environmen-
better to use lesser amount of packaging materials without deteri-
tal performance due to the energy-intense waste collection activi-
orating the quality of food and consumers acceptance to reduce
ties it requires. Tomatoes cultivated under protected conditions
environmental burden from food packaging.
produce large amounts of solid waste with certain environmental
Post-harvest practices affect the quality of food. If inappropriate
impact. Muñoz et al. (2004) reported that composting of biode-
measures are employed, the quality of food might deteriorate dur-
gradable solid waste is the best way to improve environmental fac-
ing transportation and distribution and thus cause food loss. Qual-
tors. Material recycling followed by incineration is reported to be a
ity deterioration and loss of food lead to more production to meet
much better option than direct waste incineration (Nyland et al.,
the food demand and increase the LCI (more production and more
2003). In contrast, non-readily recyclable plastic pouches for deter-
distribution). On the other hand a heavily equipped quality control
gents outperform the more recyclable bottles in terms of energy
system results in an increase in LCI. Shiina (1998) has reported the
consumption, air and water emissions and solid waste, since they
use much less material in the first place (EUROPEN, 1999). Waste
management scenarios with energy recovery achieve better envi-
2.5 ronmental performance than scenarios without energy recovery
(Bovea and Powell, 2005). Reduction or elimination of wastes or
pollutants at the source was also recommended (McComas and
2.0 McKinley, 2008). These studies indicate that alternate waste
management scenarios are useful, but an integrated waste
Relative LCI

management system would be much better to reduce overall envi-

1.5
ronmental burdens of food waste.

1.0 4. Ongoing efforts on LCA

The international LCA community is still struggling with issues

0.5 related to LCA databases, data collection and data quality goals. A
network of information sharing and exchanges of experience has
0.0 expedited the development process of LCA. Several North Ameri-
0 20 40 60 80 can and Western European countries have led these efforts. In
addition, researchers of different international organizations are
Loss (%)
closely involved in the development processes of LCA including
Fig. 2. Relationship between relative LCI and loss in food supply chain (Shiina, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the
1998). Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 7

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European
Commission and the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri Busi-
ness, Denmark. Their mission is to develop and disseminate practi-
cal tools for evaluating the opportunities, risks, and trade-offs,
associated with products and services over their entire life cycle.
Recently, the former four standards (ISO 14040: 1997, ISO
14041: 1999, ISO 14042: 2000 and ISO 14043: 2000) have been re-
vised and replaced by two new standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
to consolidate the procedures and methods of LCA (Finkbeiner et
al., 2006). Along with these organizations, many other organiza-
tions are also involved in the development of LCA. Although LCA
methodologies have improved, further international standardiza-

Fig. 3. Structure of the life cycle assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME2: Itsubo and Inaba, 2007).

Table 1
Major research organizations and their activities

Name of organization/institute Activities

International Standards Organisation (ISO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
The Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC)
United States, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production,
Australia
Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society Inc.,
LCA Center, Denmark
Society for the Promotion of LCA Development
(SPOLD), Belgium
IVF, Swedish Institute for Production Engineering
Research
The Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES), UK
LCA Center, Tsukuba, Japan
Global Alliance of LCA Centers (GALAC)
European Commission (European Platform on Life
Cycle Assessment)
The Directorate for Food Fisheries and
Agri-Business, Denmark
ISO has developed the Environmental Management Standards ISO 14000 series as a part of the development of the
international standard on LCA
UNEP’s priorities are environmental monitoring, assessment, information and research including early warning;
enhanced coordination of environmental conventions, development of environment policies and to establish the best
available practices for LCA through partnerships with other international organizations, governmental authorities,
business and industry, and non-governmental organizations
The SETAC supports the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of
sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity
The EPA is working on the development of LCA methodology under different branches
It has been established to promote the uptake of cleaner production and waste minimization activities in Western
Australia
The purpose of this society is to promote and foster the development and application of LCA methodology in Australia
and internationally for ecological sustainable development
The center promotes product-orientated environmental strategies in private and public companies by assisting them in
implementing life cycle thinking
SPOLD is involved in the development of LCA and for the necessary restructuring of company policies toward
sustainable development. It has developed the SPOLD format to facilitate LCI data exchange and for choosing relevant
data sets. They are currently focusing on developing the SPOLD format and maintaining the SPOLD Database Network
IVF has a large research program on LCAs and studies the possibility of including industrial hygiene into its LCAs
CES is the leading center for sustainable development related research and post-graduate teaching
Activities of this center include development of LCA software, LIME (Japanese version of life cycle impact assessment
method based on endpoint modeling), LCA database and dissemination of LCA methodology. It is also working on the
development of eco-efficiency for sustainable consumption
GALAC is a new international coalition formed by the following institutions to bring together National-level or higher
organizations to promote the use of life cycle approaches. The institutions are: American Center for Life Cycle
Assessment; Canadian Interuniversity Reference Center for Life Cycle Assessment, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe,
Germany; LCA Center, Denmark; Research Center for LCA, Japan
Support life cycle thinking in the development of goods and services with reference data and recommended methods.
The platform addresses the needs of private businesses and public authorities
Supports a project on life cycle assessment of basic food (2000–2003). It also supports LCA Food database
(www.lcafood.dk) and the data can be exported and used for free (Nielsen et al., 2003)
8 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
tion would enable direct comparison of different case studies. The
LCA Center in Tsukuba, Japan has developed a life cycle impact
assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME) to quan-
tify the environmental impacts as accurately as possible with a
high degree of transparency and to develop a single central index
(Eco- index). Fig. 3 shows the structure of LIME2. Studies on LIME
also concluded that a single index inevitably involves value judg-
ment (pricing) and has a higher degree of uncertainty (Itsubo
and Inaba, 2003, 2007). Moreover, a voluntary study group (food
study group) has been formed in Japan to practice LCA on food
and to develop eco-efficiency for food products by comparing value
of certain products and services with their environmental
loads (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006; Ozawa et al., 2007). Eco-effi-
ciency = (Value that a consumer receives from having meals in a
day/LC-CO2 from meals served in a day). The major research orga-
nizations working on LCA and their activities are listed in Table 1.
5. Discussion
One of the important characteristics of agricultural LCA is the
use of multiple functional units. The commonly used functional
units are mass of final products (kg), energy or protein content in
food products (kJ), area (ha), unit of livestock. Gross profit and
meal are also used. Table 2 shows some LCA studies that used mul-
tiple functional units. Although the use of LCA in the agro-food
industries is rapidly increasing, there are considerable inconsisten-
cies existing among the studies. The conventional agriculture uses
greater amount of fertilizer and pesticides compared to the organic
agriculture, but organic agriculture requires more arable land.
Genetically modified (GM) agriculture reduces emission from her-
bicide manufacture, transport and field operation compared to the
conventional agriculture. Therefore, the multiple functional units
help in better interpreting and understanding the environmental
burden, productivity and farm income.
In recent years, bio-energy production (bio-ethanol and bio-
diesel) had been increasing rapidly. Market adjustments to this
increased demand extended beyond the supply of certain raw
materials (corn, soybeans, oil seeds, etc.) to this sector, as well as
to livestock industries. This rapid expansion affects virtually every
aspect of the field crops sectors, ranging from domestic demand
and exports to price and the allocation of land area among crops.
As a consequence farm income, government payments and food
prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are al-
ready underway as interest grows in renewable sources of energy
to reduce environmental pollution and dependency on foreign oil,
which might lead to reduced food production and supply. The rush
towards bio-fuels is threatening world food production and the
lives of billions of people. It is very hard to imagine how the world
would grow enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the
same time meet the enormous demand for food.
The world population continues to grow geometrically, and
great pressure is being placed on arable land, water, energy and
Table 2
Application of multiple functional units
Authors Issues Functional units
Haas et al. (2001) Intensive, extensive and organic 1 ha and 1 ton milk
grassland farming
Hayashi (2006) A conventional and two fertilization 1 ha and 1 kg
systems tomatoes
Nemecek et al. Intensive, extensive and low input 1 ha, 1 kg DM and
(2001) farming system 1 MJ
Roy et al. (2008) Different types of meat 1 g protein and 1 kJ
energy
Basset-Mens and Pig production systems 1 kg pig and 1 ha
van der Werf
(2005)
biological resources to provide an adequate supply of food while
maintaining the ecosystem. Pimentel et al. (1994) reported that
more than 99% of the world’s food supply comes from land, while
less than 1% is from water resources. Production of cereals,
fruits and vegetables, and meat was reported to be 2,085,774,
1,345,056 and 253,688 thousand tons in 2003. As consumption
surpasses production, the world’s stocks of stored grain fall relative
to each year’s use. It was also reported that 864 million people
were undernourished in 2002–2004 (FAOSTAT, 2006). In 2003,
the estimated per capita arable land was 0.22 ha. Economic and so-
cial changes resulting in aggravating poverty or leading to collapse
of basic infrastructure and systems, poor governance, inequalities,
as well as inappropriate land management and farming methods
can contribute to both short- and long-term food shortages. There-
fore, strategies for the future must be based on the conservation
and careful management of land, water, energy and biological re-
sources needed for food production. Transitory food insecurity
and health risk would be the big challenge humankind might have
to face in the near future. Since the LCA results are dependent on
the choice of functional units, hence the interpretation should be
based on the agricultural intensity, economic and social aspect,
and food security. Food delivers many health benefits beyond en-
ergy and nutrition. The purpose of food consumption is not only
for the feeling of the stomach, but also to supply the energy re-
quired by the body and other health beneficial food components.
For a healthy body one should consume a balanced diet that quan-
tifies the food items and their sources. Hence, for the future LCA
studies on food products, there might be a choice of functional unit
for studies on food products, that is the balance diet that would
help in stabilizing the production, distribution and consumption
of foods, hence improve food security and reduce health risk.
6. Conclusions
LCA methodologies are very useful to evaluate environmental
impacts and food safety of a product or production system. This
study revealed that environmental load of a product can be re-
duced by alternate production, processing, packaging, distribution
and consumption patterns. Hence, it improves the food safety and
security and might improve international trade. Multiple outputs
in many food production systems often make the system complex,
and application of LCA on food products requires in-depth research
to understand the underlying processes and to predict or measure
the variation in emissions. Introduction of land, water, and other
approaches in agricultural LCA would provide much more reliable
and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious pol-
icy makers, producers, and consumers in selecting sustainable
products and production processes. A network of information shar-
ing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA develop-
ment process. Although LCA methodologies have been improved,
further international standardization, i.e., the development of a
single index, would enable direct comparison of different case
studies and broaden their practical applications.
Acknowledgement
The authors are indebted to the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science (JSPS) for the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No.
18.06581).
References
Adisa, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design
and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 79, 1–21.
Ajinomoto Group, 2003. Environmental performance: containers and packaging
activities. <http://www.ajinomoto.co.jp/company/kankyo/2003_e20.pdf>.
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Including environmental aspects in production
development: a case study of tomato ketchup. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Und-
Technologie 32, 134–141.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1994. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food
products and production systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5,
134–138.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of
tomato ketchup: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (3–4), 277–288.
Antón, A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Huijbregts, M., 2004a. Comparison of
toxicological impacts of integrated and chemical pest management in
Mediterranean greenhouses. Chemosphere 54 (8), 1225–1235.
Antón, M.A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., 2004b. Most significant substances
of LCA to Mediterranean greenhouse horticulture. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector,
Bygholm, Denmark.
Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., Castells, F., 2005. LCA and tomato production in
Mediterranean greenhouses. International Journal of Agricultural Resources
Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 102–112.
Audsley, E., Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliet,
O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B.P.,
Zeijts, H., 1997. Harmonization of environmental life cycle assessment for
agriculture. Final Report, Concerted Action AIR-CT94-2028, European
Commission DG VI Agriculture.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2003. Environmental assessment of
contrasting farming systems in France. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector,
Bygholm.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental
assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127–144.
Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., Grey, P., 2004. Environmental and human health
impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life
cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2 (4), 272–278.
Berlin, J., 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard
cheese. International Dairy Journal 12, 939–953.
Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.M., 2007. A life cycle based method to minimize
environmental impact on dairy production through product sequencing. Journal
of Cleaner Production 15, 347–356.
Boer, D.I.J.M., 2002. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic
milk production. Livestock Production Science 80 (1–2), 69–77.
Boer, D.I.J.M., Iepema, G., Thomassen, M.A., 2003. Environmental impact assessment
at commercial dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,
Denmark.
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2005. Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of
sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 79,
115–132.
Braschkat, J., Patyk, A., Quirin, M., Reinhardt, G.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of
bread production – a comparison of eight different scenarios. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Breiling, M., Tatsuo, H., Matsuhashi, R., 1999. Contribution of rice production to
Japanese greenhouse gas emissions applying life cycle assessment as a
methodology. University of Tokyo, Japan. <www.landscape.tuwien.ac.at/lva/
ss04/261066/docs/v10/lcaricejap-en.pdf>.
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2001. Application of the life cycle
assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet
production with different forms of nitrogen fertilizers. European Journal of
Agronomy 14 (3), 221–233.
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2004a. Environmental impact
assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment
methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop
production. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), 247–264.
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., Kuhlmann, H., 2004b.
Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using
the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application to N fertilizer
use in winter wheat production systems. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3),
265–279.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices – how can
emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy
23 (3–4), 277–293.
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2003. A systematic description and analysis of GHG
emissions resulting from Ireland’s milk production using LCA methodology. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in
the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production – a
comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production
8 (1), 49–60.
Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle
assessment of milk and beef production. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 8 (6), 350–356.
Collins, A., Flynn, A., Netherwood, A., 2005. Reducing Cardiff’s ecological footprint.
Main Report. <http://www.walesfootprint.org>.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA of Danish milk system expansion in practice. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in
the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
9
Eide, M.H., 2002. Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production. <http://
www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/0102/HogaasEideMerete.html>.
Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO14041 – a critical review. Journal of
Cleaner Production 9 (3), 197–208.
Ekvall, T., Person, L., Ryberg, A., Widheden, J., Frees, N., Nielsen, P.H., Wesnas, M.S.,
1998. Life cycle assessment on packaging systems for beer and soft drinks
(Environmental Project 399). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency,
Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark.
Erzinger, S., Dux, D., Zimmermann, A., Badertscher, F.R., 2003. LCA of animal
products from different housing system in Switzerland: relevance of feedstuffs,
infrastructure and energy use. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,
Denmark.
EUROPEN, 1999. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a policy tool in the field of
sustainable packaging waste management. A Discussion Paper EUROPEN,
Brussels, Belgium. <http://www.europen.be>.
FAOSTAT, 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO
Statistical Database. <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture>.
Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an
industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix application in the dairy
industry and implications for systems analysis. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 12 (2), 109–117.
Ferrão, P., Ribeiro, P., Nhambiu, J., 2003. A comparison between conventional LCA
and hybrid EIO-LCA: a Portuguese food packaging case study. <http://
www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Ferrao.pdf>.
Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The new
international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2), 80–85.
Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006.
Environmental impacts of food production and consumption. A Final Report to
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester Business
School, Defra, London.
Frey, S., Barrett, J., 2006. The Environmental Burden of What We Eat: A Report for
Scotland’s Global Footprint Project, Stockholm Environment Institute.
Global Footprint Network, 2008. Advancing the science of sustainability. <http://
www.footprintnetwork.org>.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Köpke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and
organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle
assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83 (1–2), 43–53.
Hakansson, S., Gavrilita, P., Bengoa, X., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment of
pork vs. tofu. Life Cycle Assessment 1N1800, Stockholm.
Hayashi, K., 2005. Environmental indicators for agricultural management: the
problem of integration. Advances in Safety and Reliability: ESREL 2005. Taylor &
Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 821–829.
Hayashi, K., 2006. Environmental indicators for agricultural management:
integration and decision making. International Journal of Materials &
Structural Reliability 4 (2), 115–127.
Henningsson, S., Hyde, K., Smith, A., Campbell, M., 2004. The value of resource
efficiency in the food industry: a waste minimization project in East Anglia, UK.
Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (5), 505–512.
Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for
foodwaste recycling and management. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan. <http://homepage1.
nifty.com/eco/pdf/ecobalanceE.pdf>.
Holderbeke, M.V., Sanjuán, N., Geerken, T., Vooght, D.D., 2003. The history of bread
production: using LCA in the past. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,
Denmark.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of
Galician milk production. International Diary Journal 13 (10), 783–796.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental analysis of beer
production. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and
Ecology 4 (2), 152–162.
Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., Henningsson, S., 2001. The challenge of waste
minimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East
Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (1), 57–64.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 1997. ISO 14040
Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14040:2006(E)
Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework.
Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8 (5), 305.
Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of LIME2 – towards the establishment of
methodology for decision making. In: SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting 2007,
SETAC-EU-0249-2007.
Janulis, P., 2004. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle.
Renewable Energy 29 (6), 861–871.
Jolliet, O., Müller-Wenk, M., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N.,
Peña, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H.,
Weidema, B.P., 2004. The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC
life cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (6), 394–
404.
Jungbluth, N., Frischknecht, R., 2004. Land occupation and transformation in the
Swiss life cycle inventory data base ecoinvent 2000. In: Proceedings of the
10 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10
Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food
Sector, Bygholm.
Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., 2000. Food purchases: impacts from the
consumer’s point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (3), 134–142.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2002. Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from
corn grain: I. System expansion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7
(4), 237–243.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized
for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (6),
426–439.
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005.
Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. Journal of Cleaner
Production 13 (4), 433–439.
Krozer, Y., 2008. Life cycle costing for innovations in product chains. Journal of
Cleaner Production 16 (3), 310–321.
Ledgard, S.F., Finlayson, J.D., Patterson, M.G., Carran, R.A., Wedderburn, M.E., 2003.
Effects of Intensification of dairy farming in New Zealand on whole system
resource use efficiency and environmental emissions. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Lindeijer, E., 2000. Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. Journal
of Cleaner Production 8 (4), 313–319.
Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste management
options. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 275–286.
Margni, M., Rossier, D., Crettaz, P., Jolliet, O., 2002. Life cycle assessment of
pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment 93 (1–3), 379–392.
Mattsson, B., Wallén, E., 2003. Environmental LCA of organic potatoes. In:
Proceedings of the 26th International Horticultural Congress, ISHS, Acta
Horticulturae 691.
Mattsson, B., Cederberg, C., Blix, L., 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle
assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. Journal of Cleaner
Production 8 (4), 283–292.
McComas, C., McKinley, D., 2008. Reduction of phosphorus and other pollutants
from industrial dischargers using pollution prevention. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16 (6), 727–733.
Monte, M.D., Padoano, E., Pozzetto, D., 2005. Alternative coffee packaging: an
analysis from a life cycle point of view. Journal of Food Engineering 66 (4), 405–
411.
Mourad, A.L., Gracia, E.E.C., Vilela, G.B., Zuben, F.V., 2008. Influence of recycling rate
increase of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 52 (4), 678–689.
Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Castells, F., 2004. Using LCA for the improvement
of waste management in greenhouse tomato production. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Nemecek, T., 2006. Life cycle assessment of food production and consumption:
examples from two European projects. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon
Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nemecek, T., Frick, C., Dubois, D., Gaillard, G., 2001. Comparing farming systems at
crop rotation level by LCA. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference
on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden.
NIAES (National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences), 2003. Report on the
Research Project on Life Cycle Assessment for Environmentally Sustainable
Agriculture. NIAES, Ibaraki, Japan.
Nielsen, P.H., Nielsen, A.M., Weidema, B.P., Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA food
database. <http://www.lcafood.dk>.
Núñez, Y., Fermoso, J., Garcia, N., Irusta, R., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment
of beef, pork and ostrich meat: a critical point of view. International Journal of
Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 140–151.
Nyland, C.A., Modahl, I.S., Raadal, H.L., Hanssen, O.J., 2003. Application of LCA as a
decision-making tool for waste management systems. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 1–6 (online first).
Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2002. Life cycle assessment of Japanese beef-
fattening system: influence of feeding length on environmental loads. In:
View publication stats
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba,
Japan.
Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the Japanese beef-
fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a life cycle
assessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2115–2122.
Ozawa, T., Inaba, A., 2006. Life cycle inventory analysis on meals: efforts of the food
study group, the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. In: Proceedings of the
Fifth AIST Workshop on LCA for Asia Pacific Region, Tsukuba, Japan.
Ozawa, T., Tahara, K., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of a sustainability indicator for
agro-food consumption and production. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-
national Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., Pimentel, M., 1994. Natural
resources and optimum population. Population and Environment 15,
347–369.
Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., Morison, J.I.L., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an
assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30 (1), 1–19.
Ramjeawon, T., 2000. Cleaner production in Mauritian cane-sugar factories. Journal
of Cleaner Production 8 (6), 503–510.
Rosing, L., Nielsen, A.M., 2003. When a hole matters – the story of the hole in a
bread fro French hotdog. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-
based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5),
561–571.
Roy, P., Shimizu, N., Kimura, T., 2005. Life cycle inventory analysis of rice produced
by local processes. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery 67
(1), 61–67.
Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2008a. A
comparative study on the life cycle of different types of meat. In: Proceedings of
the Third LCA Society Research Symposium, Nagoya, Japan.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Orikasa, T., Shiina, T., 2008b. Life cycle
inventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution systems in Japan considering the
quality aspect. Journal of Food Engineering 86 (2), 225–233.
Shiina, T., 1998. Optimization of food supply chain to minimize the environmental
load. In: Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of the Study Group on Agricultural
Structure, Tsukuba, Japan (in Japanese).
Shiina, T., Roy, P., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., 2004. Life cycle assessment of food
supply chain: a case study for inclusion of quality change aspect. In: Proceedings
of the 33rd United States and Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources
(UJNR), Hawaii, USA.
Sonesson, U., Berlin, J., 2003. Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in
Sweden: a scenario study. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3), 253–266.
Sonesson, U., Davis, J., 2005. Environmental systems analysis of meals – model
description and data used for two different meals. SIK-Rapport, Nr. 735 2005,
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stanhill, G., 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: a comparison of six
systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25,
145–154.
Takamoto, Y., Mitani, Y., Takashio, M., Itoi, K., Muroyama, K., 2004. Life cycle
inventory analysis of a beer production process. Master Brewers Association of
Americas 41 (4), 363–365.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1995. Food processing and the
environment. Industry and Environment 18 (1), 3.
Wagendrop, T., Gulinck, H., Coppin, P., Muys, B., 2006. Land use impact evaluation in
life cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy 31 (1), 112–
125.
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmental
burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural
commodities. In: Main Report, Defra Research Project IS0205, Cranfield
University and Defra. <http://www.defra.go.uk>.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., Löfgren, M., 2008. A life cycle perspective on
environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of
Cleaner Production 16 (7), 853–859.
Zabaniotou, A., Kassidi, E., 2003. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging
made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11
(5), 549–559.